Sony Cyber-shot RX1R Preview

Design

Note that this page covers the basics of the RX1R's design, but for a really detailed look at how the RX1R's operation and ergonomics, we'd recommend taking a look at our in-depth review of the physically-identical RX1, published earlier this year. Some of the images on this page show the RX1.

With its minimalist style, straight lines and rounded edges, the RX-1R follows the RX1 exactly, which itself followed the design philosophy of the Cyber-shot RX100 enthusiast compact camera (the new M2 version is also very similar in terms of layout). The camera's electronics are encased by a metal shell, and while there isn't really much of a hand grip to speak of, the grip and thumb rest areas are covered with a soft rubber material that feels comfortable in the hand.

Key control elements can be found in various places around the RX1R's body. There are dedicated flash release and playback buttons above the screen on the camera rear. To the right of the screen is a 4-way control dial with a central button used for confirming options. Above it you'll find the rear dial which lets you change shutter speed in M- and S-modes and program-shift in P mode.

The rubber inlays on the metal body provide good grip, but given its size and weight (not to mention lens-mounted aperture ring) we would recommend two-handed operation of the RX1R. Both the rear dial and the exposure compensation dial are in good reach of your thumb, which can also be placed on the rubberized rest. Sony also offers an optional metal thumb-rest which connects to the camera's hotshoe as an alternative.

The top plate houses the mode dial, shutter button and a dedicated exposure compensation dial on the far right edge. Aperture and minimum focus distance are controlled via rings on the lens while the focus mode can be set using the focus mode switch on the front.

Movie recording can be initiated from any shooting mode with the press of of the dedicated movie button, which has been placed at a 45 degree angle along the camera's right edge. If you find yourself catching it too readily, there's an option to only make it active when the mode dial is set to movie mode.

Overall, the camera has a very solid high quality look and feel to it. You have to decide for yourself if it feels like it's worth $2800, but if you hold the RX1R in your hands it is immediately obvious this is a premium product which is being targeted at a demanding clientele.

The RX1R's lens, which is designated as a Carl Zeiss Sonnar T*, features a leaf shutter for essentially silent operation (though you can engage a sound effect if you wish). This design means the camera can sync with flashes all the way up to its 1/2000th maximum shutter speed, as well as allowing the lens to reach closer to the front of the sensor.

The lens itself is a complex design including 8 elements in 7 groups, with 3 aspherical elements, including one 'advanced aspheric' element. It can focus down as close as 30cm from the imaging plane (24cm in front of the lens), in its native configuration. If you need to focus closer, a ring around the front of the lens can be rotated into a different position, shifting the focus group, allowing focus down to 20cm from the sensor plane.

Compared to Fujifilm X100S

The RX1R's most natural peer (forgetting the massive price difference for a moment) is Fujifilm's X100S, which offers an APS-C format 16MP X-TRANS sensor with phase-detection focus pixels, and a similar 35mm (equivalent) F2 lens as the RX1R.

Given that the RX1R is packing a full-frame sensor inside it, the camera is impressively compact. The X100S is slightly taller and wider, but on the plus side, it has a better-defined grip, and of course that wonderful built-in hybrid viewfinder.

From behind, its the X100S's viewfinder that represents the main difference between the two cameras. The rear control cluster on both models is pretty standard, but the RX1R does have a larger display (which partly makes up for the lack of a finder).

From the top, it is very obvious just how big the RX1R's lens is compared to the almost pancake design of the Fujifilm's 23mm F2. Both cameras have manual aperture rings, and external exposure compensation dials, but the X100S also offers a manual shutter speed dial. The RX1R features an exposure mode dial, in the same position.

Body Elements

The RX1R's 'Multi Interface Shoe' allows for ISO standard accessories, as well as Sony's two viewfinders and stereo microphone.

The built-in flash pops up at a press of the flash button on the back of the camera and offers GN (6).

On the front of the camera is the focus mode dial, which has AF, DMF and MF positions.

The AF position is S-AF in stills mode and C-AF in movies.

The DMF position is essentially S-AF with manual focus override once focus has been achieved.

Like on the NEX-6, the recessed movie record button is placed, somewhat awkwardly, along the camera's right edge at a 45 degree angle.

Should you ever find yourself operating it accidentally, it can be customized to only be active when in movie mode.

The camera's connectors consist of a USB and HDMI port and an external mic input. They are accessible behind a door on the camera left.

The battery and SD card go into a compartment on the base of the camera. The RX-1R uses the same 4.5Wh NP-BX1 Li-ion battery as the RX100 compact camera.

Sony claims it provides 270 shots per charge with the rear LCD set to standard brightness according to the CIPA standard. This is a little on the low side, compared with most mirrorless cameras, but not terrible.

The tripod mount is aligned with center of the lens axis but the mount is pretty close to the battery/memory which means, depending on the quick-release plate you use, you might not be able to open the door with the camera on a tripod.

I used to do ships’ photography for some 25 years with analogue/professional Cannon equipment, but got fed up about the whole stuff, heavy, expensive, temptin for thieves, etc. Interrupted action for some 10 years and now decided to return with the Sony RX100 and the RX1. I hereby wish to say that I see so much of polemics about the RX1 but frankly speaking, this camera is exactly what I wanted, irrespectively of its price. Most people won’t be able to afford that? Clear, but don’t blame Sony. You buy what you want as long as your money allows you. Besides that, it’s simply talk, talk, talk, but completely unjustified. The RX100 is a great camera, but the RX1 is much better and that’s unquestionable when you evaluate it all!

I don't know anyone who thinks this camera needs a built in flash. Everyone wants a built in view finder. I hate it when companys trying to milk you by buying essential "optional accessories", as if the camera wasn't expensive enough! Do the right thing and fix it Sony.

Sony, do the sensible thing and replace the silly flash with a viewfinder on RX1, RX100. You have just come up with Alpha a7 without a flash. How many $500-$600 accessory viewfinders are you selling? Be a good boy!

any updated opinion on the camera now that the a7 and a7r are announced? :)

my personal opinion? having a fixed lens is not significant consideration to me, nor the lack of a built in EFV. I personally like the 35mm choice, and the ability to simply attach an EFV when preferred.

However, I would've loved to have the RX1 with an articulated screen, and WiFi capabilities. Those two features I truly miss. Yet still were not dealbreakers then when I was going to make the purchase.

The EVF gets you the articulating screenEyefi gets you wifiI live the option to have the rx1 really small, but gariz and EVF it up when I need to. And the silent shutter really seals the deal.I think this is complimentary to the A7

Why not compare this to the Leica X Vario? I've looked closely at the output from both, and the Vario is hands down a better camera, and at the same price point. The Vario offers a 24 - 70mm (35mm equiv) lens for much more versatility, and in nearly the same size and weight package. The Vario produces much sharper images, and the images are tack sharp corner to corner, even wide open. Much better than the RX1 or RX1R. Further, you get the rich colors Leica is known for, again better than the Sony.

To Siff: Buy the RX1. I own this camera and it has better resolution and sharpness than any other camera I have ever used (and I've used a lot of them). Thus, the anti-aliasing filter is a plus and it's absence will make no real world difference.

Old guy here.. I have had so many cameras I can't remember them all.. however the Sony RXx1r is the finest camera I have ever owned for a fixed lens camera. style, build quality, size, lens, and IQ.. When I walk out the door in the morning I grab it on the way out the door..

I could really love a camera like this. I'd be happy with a full frame mirrorless with a fast fixed lens, but the focal length is way too wide for my tastes. I'm mostly a people photographer. I love faces, especially eyes. I wouldn't want anything wider than a 50mm on a full frame sensor.

I have the equivalent with an APS-C size sensor: a Samsung NX100 with a 30mm f/2 pancake lens. It's very compact and the only thing that really bugs me about it is the lack of a viewfinder. But I wouldn't want anything wider for a walkaround lens for my purposes.

Lens Mount: Yes would have been a completely different camera as it's FF. Although I'll never find the funds to get this one, I'm so happy there's at least some one other than Leica trying to compactify the FF format.

The removal of the AA filter is very apparent especially on the little globe on top. Center "INDIAN" and you'll see the difference in details between RX1R and RX1.

Now here's my situation. I've actually decided to buy this camera. Now whether if you agree with me on whether if it's worth it or not is not the issue. Putting it's price vs value aside, which one would you recommend me buying? Which one would you recommend for me, and everyone else who's buying this camera? I'm very curious in the community's opinion. Thank you very much in advance.

My opinion would be to buy RX1, so with the AA filter. I should mention I am not a professional, so it might diminish the validity of my answer here. However, I think that resolution is not that important. It's already high enough with most of the digital cameras today. If you do want good pictures without pixel peaking I'd really go with the filter. Moiré is a bit problem as repeated patterns are quite ubiquitous. Clothing, furniture, animals. Just my opinion.

This throws me, why is it that the DPR; NEX 7 image sample blows away the RX1r sample. In fact that NEX 7 sample blows away just about every studio sample - even the 800e?

I almost qualified the NEX 7 for purchase just for this reason, but the real world of the NEX just didn't stack up. Did DPR just get everything right in the NEX 7 studio test? They really botched the FUJI X's in that case.

You are right - the Nex 7 blows everything away in this comparison - I only say this here, because I wanted the Sony Rx1r, but now after looking at the comparison shots in the test ??

Added later: But try to look not just at the comparison, but also the sample gallery as I just did after this post - the RX1(r) has a character that the Nex-7 does not have - there is a certain "touch" I like.

Nice cam, looks cool and handy. But I consider the price off the hook. You lay out $2800+$250 for some strange thumb-grip+another $450 for a VF...Why would one buy such camera over a nice and pleasurable FF compact DSLR, say 5DMk3+EF35/2 IS USM, which is nearly the same money (€3100 for Sony vs. €2600+€700 for Canon5D+EF35 combo) (and doesn't need this ugly thumb-thing to be held comfortably). I believe this combo would perform better in all situations. Yeah, we want it compact, but do we really for such money?

This version should have been called the Landscape RX1. But unless you have need to put photos up online untouched: 30 seconds of Lightroom 5 or even iPhoto could produce the same details.However, the RX1 is no point and shoot and takes some learning. A fixed lens is a strict mistress and the new version will not change the fact that it has limits which you must learn. The RX1R now adds another lesson with moire- artifacts, other reviewers of the RX1R, who are not savvy ran into trouble very quickly. Since most serious hobbyists and professionals use some software to crop or enhance I am baffled by Sony's tiny Side-grade: in most situations you'll not notice the difference.Some customers upgrading from a PAS, will not be happy with the RX1R. It will be even harder to use than the RX1, both should come with Lightroom 5. I love using a full framed sensor with a great lens but buyer beware Auto is a mess the RX1R will only make this worse. The RX1/R are not for family snapshots.

What aperture do they use for the resolution charts? Anything above 5.6 would level the playing field. I'm sure if they used f22, most camera from the last 10 years would be "equal" in terms of resolution due to diffraction.

Olympus OM-D gradation set to "auto" and the Sony set to 3, the Olympus goes 2 stops deeper in to the black and matches the Sony on the white. So I'm still looking for a reason this thing is worth $2800.

This reminds me of the old stereo receiver/amp/pre-amp crap, when you had to look at an oscilloscope to see any differences. To the human ear, there was no difference between .0001% distortion and .0002%, just as to the human eye, at the size you're actually going to be viewing photos, there is no discernible difference between these two cameras and a dozen others out there.

I am sure you're right about 'this model is an absolute delight to own and to use'. Seems indeed to be the case!

I'd love to own a RX1, maybe God is in a good mood one day!

Big sensors (physical size, not MPs) perform best with wide lenses (to get enough DOF to be practical - for instance, a 800mm lens is very tricky to use on a Hasselblad, unless you're gazing out into space), and the reverse is equally true, small sensors can be amazing when used with long focal length lenses (again, enough DOF to be practical - a 800mm lens on my V1 is very useful, as the DOF isn't leaf-thin any longer).

Thus 35mm on the RX1 is probably close to being the ideal compromise on a FF camera ;-)!

Not seeing too much advantage of the 'R' over the standard RX1 model. But this isn't what holds me back from either - it's the inflexibility of one FL. (Yes I have lived with a one lens camera for months on the road. I know that I prefer a small suite of FLs and I'm not alone). And a built-in EVF please. If Sony made a similarly small FF body, a little taller to accommodate the BIEVF, gave it a grip and a suite of lenses of say 24/35/50/90mm, they'd be rushing out the door if the body price was contained to the same as a 6D/D600. Those who want a single prime aren't compelled to buy more than one lens. Just do it.

Where's the advantage of this camera over the D600 in IQ? The samples show better detail in favor of D600. Maybe the fixed lens is not so good. I think a fixed lens camera for this price should have just the best lens in the world.

The trouble with the Sony the lens is just not good enough to warrant removal of AA filter. Sure it's a little better, but it's not pulling out anymore detail, just a tad sharper and you could equalise the RX1 and RX1R with some judicious sharpening. The D600 with AA filter and good glass is much better, and as you can see D800E is noticeably better than D800 with good glass.

@dimsgrI partially agree with you. A soft lens acts as an AA filter if its resolution is lower than the "raw" sensor resolution, but a good FF lens is sharp when stopped down at F8 or F11. If it is soft here, then it is crap IMHO.When designing a fixed lens for a given sensor, lens designers could "choose" a resolution that prevents the use of an AA filter. But then it would not be to enhance the global resolution of the camera, but for the sole purpose of (small ?) cost reduction.So, removing the AA filter is only interesting for the photographer if the lens is sharper than the sensor. Maybe fixed lens camera designers should build an AA filter the same way an ND filter is implemented in some cameras.Then the photographer could choose to use it or not according to the risk of moiré.

$3000 does seem like a lot. Sony gave me the opportunity to shoot with it for a day and I racked up a thousand shots on it. I'm very impressed with it on so many levels.

Considering what it produces both from the lens and the sensor is very commendable. The quality is far better than what I've seen on even more expensive combinations, including an SLR with a 35mm lens.

Does it seem expensive, yes it does. But once you use it for it's intended purposes and compare it to things like even my X-Pro1 with a 35mm, or using a Leica with a 35mm, this blows it away and fits perfectly in a pocket.

well, how often is efficient AF tracking needed with a 35mm lens? It's probably not going to be used for action shooting very often, if at all.But I agree that $3000 is way over the top. A D600 with a Sigma 35/1.4 would actually be cheaper, can take other lenses, and has better AF tracking.

I was with Sony at the NYC CEA Line show where UHDTVs and Blu-ray discs were available with xvYCC color space - the same enhanced color that Sony UHD 4K movie downloads will come with. I asked which cameras will capture xvYCC and was told to wait 30 days for an announcement.Look at the fine print and you will see that the RX1r specs state a variant on xvYCC - this should be seen on new Sony displays with such capability.The Blu-ray discs with expanded xvYCC are excellent - and the 1st offering beyond ITU Rec 709 colorI will of course reserve final judgment until my camera arrives - but Sony should be congratulated for pioneering expanded color space in TVs, movies and now cameras.

I don't find that there is such a big difference between the two in contrast and sharpness - just a bit if you pixel-peep - but I'm not sure it's worthy of a second model, at the expense of occasional moiré.

This camera represents PURE profit. The only expense they have is for royalties to Zeiss to use their name on this camera. They make the sensor, and who actually makes the lens..is it Cosina? This camera looks like a Toyota car from the 1970's.....with badges and decals stuck EVERYWHERE...ultra tacky for the price point.

This camera needs: To have the price of the camera go down, to about 2k and the finder with mail in rebate of $200.00. Fix the 1/80 of sec. and put a real sutter dail on top. Offer a good grip.Sony makes cameras like Walkmans. Sony make cameras like cameras. Not electronic wiz-bangs. Photoprahy should be fast and painless. For everyone, from point and shoot to Pro!

This seems a pointless excercise by Sony for such marginal gains when the existing RX1, while very good, still has irritating minor issues such as no peaking in non-magnified view and a default 1/80th sec shutter speed in auto ISO when in A priority mode, (which should be user assignable so you could choose a higher or lower default shutter speed). It would be far better for existing users if Sony had fixed these issues in firmware updates, rather than rush to issue a new model, (with the same problems), in such a short timeframe.

You are better off with a Sigma DP1 or 2 Merrill series camera for the low ISO range and something else for high ISO shooting and you'll have plenty of cash left over. For the low ISO shots you'd have by far much better image quality with the Sigmas. It's stunning and shameful how DPPreview ignores the newest Sigmas.

that's my setup - DP2M + Fuji X-Pro1. But I am thinking about RX1R but I'm yet to see the true benefits over X-Pro1, let's be honest, I'm not sure it's that much better (I'm not denying that it's not).

It's a nice camera but extremely overrated and overpriced. My Sigma DP1 and 2 Merrill cameras absolutely destroy that $3000 Sony camera in image detail, but then that goes without saying for the Sigmas against any other cameras at low ISO.

I own both the RX1 and a DP2m, and prefer the Sony overall. It delivers impressively natural results, and produces great images in a wide variety of lighting conditions. Both cameras deliver great colour, though the Sigma loses out in poor light. Sure, the DP2m is super-sharp and detailed, but its high (exaggerated?) micro-contrast often produces rough skin tones, making it a mixed success for people photography. Agreed, the Sony sports a high price tag, but it's not unreasonably expensive when you consider the quality/speed of the lens, and the fact that it has a full-frame sensor.

There's a difference between sharpness created by high resolving power, and sharpness based on high acutance. Much of what's offered today as 'sharpness' is actually exaggerated acutance. For me, the Sigma's eye-popping detail is created by its exceptionally crisp micro-contrast. This makes it good at reproducing the granular texture of (say) a stone wall. But it's much less satisfactory on skin tones because it exaggerates things like pores and blemishes. The Sony RX1 offers a smoother kind of sharpness, which (to me) looks truer and more natural. Fine detail has an 'effortless' medium-format look - it doesn't scream DETAIL at you. Interestingly, the high acutance 'Sigma look' can be convincingly recreated in images from Beyer sensor cameras by the use of post-processing programs such as Nik Color Efex and Silver Efex. Okay - everyone now shout and yell, and tell me I'm misguided or wrong. But it's true! And I say this as a 'fan' of Sigma and the Foveon sensor.

I would love to see the same pictures taken a few second apart at the same ISO and aperture with the RX1 and the new RX1R.

Portrait and people as well as a few landscape.

I am incline to believe, base on the pictures I have reviewed that the RX1 after a bit of PP is already, once enlarged to size like a 24 x 36 are as sharp as the new RX1R is capable of producing (without the moirer...) ?

The reasons for shooting our current test scene in the way that we do are pretty well-recorded. Basically, we choose apertures (per format) for a decent compromise between depth of field and uniform sharpness. If this really really offends you, you'll be pleased to know that the resolution chart was shot at F4.5, and the real-world images on the final page were both at F8.

After searching the trest chart high and low in jpeg and RAW it makes almost no difference, basically looks like the RX1 with a bit of sharpening applied with radius 0.3-0.4 say. It might be the lens holding it back, since the D600 results are much crisper. So to see the best from this sensor sans AA filter you would need better glass, so I'd say unless it's the same cost, get the RX1, and even then if the IQ is basically a wash I'd get the RX1 and have to deal with moire less often.

D800E on the other hand shows real improvement over D800, but you can select the best glass freely.

Beautiful form factor and ID. The lens is a disappointment...sharp in the center, soft on the edges and corners. All it take is a comparison of the Nikon D600, Ricoh GR and the Pentax K5IIs. They all clearly are superior in the corners and as an example check out the smearing of lettering on the batteries in the lower left hand corner vs the others or the watch face on the opposite corner. At higher ISOs the Nikon and Pentax are also significantly less noisy. It continues to amaze me that Nikon and Pentax do a superior job of implementing SONY sensors.

Where are you getting your information about the lens on the RX-1? Testing by DxO shows the lens to be as sharp or sharper than any 35mm F2 lens, including the razor sharp Sigma that just got an 89 and a Gold award in DP testing. And where are you getting your information on noise? Obviously you don't own and haven't really had any experience with the product.

It seems the focus is at a different point for different cameras in the studio scene making comparisons difficult. In some places the X100s look sharper. The resolution chart shows a clear advantage to the RX1r over the RX1. Anyway real world images are where it really counts.

So all this talk about filters and pixels and resolutions etc etc really arnt all these cameras were talking about brilliant in there own right. I mean unless your walking round with a magnifying glass arn""t we getting a bit picky?